ApostateAbe

Mark 10:18 reads:

Jesus said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.'

What do you make of this passage?

Toto

Whatever it means, and whenever it was written, I don't see the relevance to the question of an early source that identifies Jesus as a mere mortal.

outhouse

I think that Gmark was a compilation.

I believe some of these peaces and parts before hand, had more of a mortal spin to them, allthough divinity is a given from the get go.

It was common for mortal men to be atributed with divinity. Emperors as a example.



Now for your question

Jesus question is designed to draw him to recognizing his divinity

Mark frequents this type of questioning for his divinity in his scripture, he's trying to get the reader to think.

Theres alot of different views though, I didnt read many that claim it is literal, that he is not the same as god. Its obvious Gmarks author places divnity in Jesus.

outhouse

I agree.

My point is the synoptic authors work is factually layered, with more mythology as time goes by, correct?

ApostateAbe

OK, so, I ask again, what do you make of it?

Toto

Have you read this thread?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=324166

After reading that, I am not sure that anything coherent can be made of that pericope.

aa5874

Mark 6.48-49 reads The earliest Canonised story of Jesus of Nazareth was made public and it is extremely clear that the author is writing about a character that APPEARED to have Flesh but was NOT human.

We see the author confirmed his Jesus of Nazareth character APPEARED to have Flesh but was NOT human when it is claimed he transfigured in the presence of his disciples.

Mark 9:2 reads gMark was a public document. People of antiquity, even the Emperor of Rome and the Roman people accepted gMark accounts of Jesus who had the ability to walk on the sea and transfigure.

Jesus of Nazareth was a Mythological character and perfectly matched the Mythology of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

Later, gMatthew reads that Jesus was born of a Holy Ghost and a Virgin.

Afterwards the author of gLuke did the very same thing. After an investigation, gLuke reads that Jesus was declared to be the product of a Ghost.


And after, the Pauline letters read Jesus was the Son of God and even later Ignatius Epistles read that Jesus was God.

And then the writings Aristides, Justin, Tertullian, Origen, Clement read the same--Jesus was a product of the Holy Ghost.

Once we read the writings that were made public in antiquity then it is extremely easy to see that Jesus was publicly a character of Mythology.

People of antiquity could have ONLY believed Jesus existed and this is reflected in the Canon itself.

No author of the Canon claimed they actually saw Jesus and no author claimed they became a Christian after coming in contact with Jesus of Nazareth.

In Acts, even Paul became a Christian after he heard voices in his head but Saw Nothing.

ApostateAbe

I haven't read that thread, in part because threads started by people on my ignore list do not show up in my forum listings. In your opinion, does the passage not make sense if Jesus per Mark is just an amazing human being? Much like how Jesus seems to come off in the rest of the gospel of Mark?

aa5874

gMark reads just like ancient mythology.

gMark reads like Jewish, Greek and Roman mythology

In gMark virtually every account of Jesus was not humanly possible.

From the Baptism by John with the Holy Ghost bird and the voice from heaven to the resurrection--from gMark 1 to gMark 16.

We cannot forget at all that the stories of Jesus as a transfiguring water walker was completely acceptable and completely plausible in antiquity.

We cannot forget that Jesus came to baptise people with a Ghost.

I did not make it up.

It is documented and made public for hundreds of years.

Mark reads

Mark 1:8 KJV The earliest Jesus story in the Canon is pure unadulterated mythology and it was made public and accepted by the Roman Emperor.

If Jesus was NOT the product of a Ghost why would Christians say so?

If Jesus was NOT the product of a Ghost why would the Roman Empire and Emperor accept the Gospels as history?

The matter has been resolved.

Jesus, the Son of the Ghost, was a figure of history in antiquity exactly like Adam or Romulus.

See Genesis for the story of the Myth called Adam.

See Plutarch's Romulus for the Myth called Romulus.

See gMark for the Myth called Jesus of Nazareth.

Toto

I figured that, so I pointed it out to you. The passage does not make a lot of sense. The gospel of Mark does not make a lot of sense. If you think any of this makes sense, you are imposing your own ideas on it.

Mark's Jesus is not just an amazing human being - he hears God telling him he is his son, spars with Satan in the wilderness while not eating for 40 days, works miracles, talks to demons, multiplies bread and fishes, walks on water, and rises from the dead. He does not appear to do any of the ordinary things that we expect people to do - get married, have children, work for a living, collect money for his services, honor his mother or his father, speak up in his own defense at his trial.